Talk:Collector Cruiser
It's explicitly mentioned in the game that the ship that killed the SR-1, the ship that lands on the human colony, and the ship that Shepard's team boards later on are the same vessel. (EDI mentions that her scans of the derelict ship's EM signatures match the signatures of the ship from two years ago, while someone else speculates that the Turians were able to disable the derelict ship because the colony's defense batteries had damaged it.) But I'm not sure if the latter point was actually confirmed or if it was just guessing (especially due to the fact that it is mentioned that the derelict might also have been an intentional trap), so I'm not adding it in yet. UERD 07:23, January 31, 2010 (UTC) You know, I don't think there's a reason to believe more than one of those ships ever existed. One was enough to capture the entire earth. - ~~ :There's also no reason to assume that there was only one of these ships. SpartHawg948 12:19, January 31, 2010 (UTC) ::It seems likely to assume a one ship theory by the end of the game. The "coincidences" that it is a ship with the same EM signature that follows Shepherd all add up by the end. Only that sole cruiser is sent out to fight you. It seems hard to imagine room for a second docking port on the station, which would surely be needed if there was a fleet. This cruiser has enough space for "all of earth's people" or something like that, why would a second be needed? We can't be certain the collectors are gone, but the game leads us to believe there was (likely, but not certainly!) only one cruiser. It bears mentioning in the article. Francis2559 04:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC) I was an infiltrator class and had the option to train in the use of an assault rifle. It isn't listed here, so just stating it as something that can be added. Wondering if it was necessary to add: "Shepard can either choose to learn how to use weapons not native to his or her class, which unlocks use of the 'normal' weapons of that type (but not the advanced weapons listed below). For example, a Vanguard class character can choose to either pick up the Claymore shotgun, or learn how to use normal assault rifles or sniper rifles, providing additional tactical options. Otherwise, Shepard will select one of the following weapons:" Asking, because I'd added some information within the weapon categories themselves saying which classes can pick the guns, and if they aren't that class, they simply have access to the other weapons of that category that they already own. "Soldier and Vanguard option only, choosing Shotgun as another class simply lets you use the Shotguns you already have available." Is the example of what I put after the selectable Shotgun for Vanguard/Soldier, seems redundant, and what I put seemed more compact and informative. Jaline 07:15, February 5, 2010 (UTC) : Go ahead and change it back. As long as it's clear that a character who can't already use that class of weapon won't get the special weapon, but rather simply use of the existing weapons. That's the real important thing to tell people. UERD 09:02, February 5, 2010 (UTC) Regarding upgrades. I would like to know, I am currently on my second playthough and I want to know when I go back to the ship will I be able to train in another weapon and if so will it replace my last weapon I trained in or will I be trained in both, or will the option to train in a new weapon not appear this time around? - RASICTalk 16:33, February 4, 2010 (UTC) From what I'm aware of, if you're doing the second play-through as the same character (imported from your previous ME2 save), you will not be able to pick a new weapon (meaning Soldier cannot do 3 picks to get all of them, and an Engineer for example cannot use all Snipers/Assaults/Shotguns.) However, I'm not 100% certain about this, it's simply what I've read from others who've played through using an import ME2 character. Jaline 05:40, February 5, 2010 (UTC) The current page page reflects the truth: You cannot get a new weapon/training on a second playthrough with an imported ME2 character. Lyriq 18:55, February 7, 2010 (UTC) What is meant by the sentence: "The training carries through with each additional new game"? Does the term "new game" mean additional playthroughs with the same character or subsequent playthroughs with a different character? The reason this isn't immediately obvious to me is that, after having played through once as a Soldier, I started a new game with a new character as an Infiltrator. While I was designing the Infiltrator, I was given the option of choosing one additional power from my teammates that was unlocked during the Soldier playthrough. I assume that, if I chose a unique weapon during one playthrough (for example, my Soldier chose the unique assault rifle), and then used that same character to playthrough a second time, I'd still have that unique weapon. The question is, during the second playthrough with the same character, would I be provided with... a) the option to choose specialized training in a different weapon type OR a different unique weapon, b) The option to choose specialized training in a different weapon type BUT NOT access to other unique weapons, or c) no options for additional training NOR unique weapons? As a seperate question, if I play a new game with a new character, I know the new character won't have access to a unique weapon choose by a different character. For example, my Infiltrator does not have access to the unique assault rifle my Soldier chose. The question is, if the first character chose to gain access to a new weapon type, will the new character start with access to that weapon type too? Servius 02:18, February 9, 2010 (UTC) Huh? From the article: "Collector cruiser hulls are vulnerable to sustained bombardment from Alliance anti-ship turrets, suggesting they are not warships." Is this supposed to imply that warships are impervious to turrets? Or that Alliance turrets are only meant to be effective against non-military ships? Neither really makes sense. UERD 10:37, February 5, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, that bit pretty much defied common sense. Just because they can be damaged by anti-ship weaponry, they may not be warships? I guess the words Anti-Ship didn't really mean anything to whoever added that in! :P I mean, what else would you call a large, heavily armed ship that goes around blowing up warships and attacking colonies? SpartHawg948 11:32, February 5, 2010 (UTC) More than one? How are we so sure that there are more than one Collector Cruiser? In the game, it's specifically stated that the ship that destroys the first Normandy is the same ship that attacks the Horizon colony, and the same ship that Shepard boards in the middle of the game. Then during the scene just before the Normandy SR2 crashes into the Collector station, Joker refers to the cruiser coming to attack them as their "old friend". The only appearance of a Collector cruiser that isn't specifically noted as being the same ship that Shepard encountered befor is when the IFF is activated and the Normandy SR2's crew is captured. That's like five total appearances with ships that look pretty much the same, and four of them are named as the same ship. Also the Collectors would not have needed more than one ship. While on the cruiser, Shepard and his squad talk about how many pods are in it, and that there are too many to hold just the population of human colonies in the Terminus systems. One squad member then says that the Collectors ship must be planning to go for Earth. If one ship can hold a significant fraction of Earth's population, then why build more, especially since only a many hundred thousand more humans (or a few million) would be needed to finish the proto-Reaper, not billions (which would be too much for even this ship to handle)? Also, the Collector base didn't appear to have more than one dock for a cruiser, and if there were more than one ship, then what happens to the rest of the ships after the base gets blown up or radiated? Do the Collectors on those float around and die without the general? Couldn't other races or Cerberus find their ships (since they had to be outside the Omega4 relay because we didn't see them) and use their technology? Anyway, I think what we know points to there being just one ship. 21:47, February 8, 2010 (UTC) I thought of adding something here, because I saw that a comment about this cruiser being the only one we see in ME2 being removed. I'd have to completely agree that this cruiser is the only collector ship that we see in ME2, and I would *think* that if there was more than one, we'd have seen it, though I don't much think there's a need to say that there aren't any more collector ships, I'd say that this IS the only one we see in Mass Effect 2, we do not see any other ships in ME2 from the Collectors, as it's fairly well documented that Shepard is being hounded by the same Collector ship over and over again. So I would think that "This is the only collector ship seen in Mass Effect 2" would be a proper way to put it. Jaline 01:07, February 13, 2010 (UTC) : First of all, out of the five appearances (destruction of SR-1, Horizon surface, 'derelict' ship trap, Normandy ambush, and destruction of Collector ship), only the first three are 'confirmed' in-game to be the same ship. Perhaps it is implied that the same ship is stalking Shepard all five times, but dialogue only positively confirms the first three cases. Everything else on the motives ('they only need one ship', 'why build more?' is speculation). Finally, "This is the only Collector ship seen in Mass Effect 2" is demonstratably wrong- what do you call an Oculus? UERD 01:34, February 13, 2010 (UTC) I call the Oculus more like a collector drone, to specifically answer your question. Even the Oculus page notes that it's unknown if these Oculus are remotely controlled or if there was actually a collector flying it. I would personally think of the Oculus as drones, or probes, that are used to remotely scout and deter any visitors that come near the collector base, even the fact that they are called Oculus leads us to the fact that they are more like a scout drone. Think of them as the collector equivalent to engineer combat drones. Also, the re-wording that I used, made it sound as if "If there is more than ONE collector cruiser, the cruiser is still the only known TYPE of collector warship" which still makes perfect sense in my opinion.. It's not as if we have confirmation that the ship that hits the Normandy was not the same ship, and it's not as if we have confirmation that the ship we blow up after the Omega 4 Relay, is not the same ship either, though I do remember Joker saying that it was an old friend and I believe Shepard actually said something about "the same ship dogging me for two years" at that time as well (though it might have been earlier). Jaline 01:50, February 13, 2010 (UTC) I would also like to point out, since you just changed it again, and said "take a look at starships page" that we actually have no idea if the Oculus are capable of what it says on the starship page: "Starships are space craft capable of traveling between starsystems, using mass relays and the FTL mass effect drive." Where do we see an Oculus travel between starsystems or using a mass relay? We don't. We also again, like I said, have no confirmation that the Oculus was even a piloted craft, it could simply have been a remote drone, and that is even mentioned upon the Oculus page. If you can show me proof of an Oculus travelling between starsystems, using a mass relay, having for fact, a pilot and not being a remote craft, then perhaps I'll agree with you. Jaline 01:57, February 13, 2010 (UTC) : First of all, the starships page says nothing about the starship being piloted by an organic pilot, an AI, a VI, or anything. A Reaper doesn't have a crew scurrying around and we would count it as a starship. : We don't know if Oculi can travel using FTL or relays- we have no reason to say they can't. You notice the starships page has fighters as a class of starships. There is nothing in the game that states that human or any other fighters can FTL travel or make relay jumps- and they they are on the page. : Even so, let us assume for the sake of argument that the Oculus is not a starship. That still doesn't change the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that the ambush ship and the final ship are the same as the ship in the first three appearances. That, by itself, is enough to remove the statement, as we do NOT know for sure. : We can ask an admin for a decision, as they have policy control. Say, Mr. SpartHawg948. Actually, he says above, "There's also no reason to assume that there was only one of these ships." And we don't add assumptions, at least not without stating that they are assumptions. But maybe he's changed his mind. I'll leave a message and maybe he can put this matter to a rest. UERD 02:05, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :: I left a message. Asking for his opinion is probably more constructive than clogging up the history with any more back and forth edits, so I'll leave it until he gives us his input. UERD 02:11, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :::Already left my opinion about the whole brouhaha here on this very page (although in a later section) about 6 minutes before your post saying you had asked for my opinion. Guess I'm some kind of psychic! SpartHawg948 02:14, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Never seen again? So, I removed a bit that was out-and-out speculation about how, given that their base was occupied or captured, and given the possible annihilation of the Collectors as a whole (don't even get me started on how speculative that is), it's doubtful any Collector cruisers will ever be seen again. This is, of course, pure speculation. It is possible, after all, for military forces to hold out and keep fighting well past the end of hostilities even if their bases are occupied/destroyed, their governments collapse, and they are completely cut off from supply. Just look at the CSS Shenandoah, which fired the last shots of the Civil War two months after the war ended and the Confederacy ceased to exist, the Prague Offensive, which continued for three days after Nazi Germany capitulated to the Soviets, or any of the Japanese holdouts, some of whom didn't surrender until nearly two decades after the Japanese Empire surrendered in WWII. So no, it is not doubtful that Collector cruisers will ever be seen again. SpartHawg948 01:42, February 13, 2010 (UTC) NOT the 'only ship', NOT the only one of its type Please stop editing the article to make these assertions. Oculi are 'Collector ships'. A fighter is a ship- look at the Starships page. Also, we have no evidence that says that the ship in the final two sightings is the same ship as the one in the first three. We do not know if there is only one, we do not know if there is more than one. The correct thing to do is to not make a definitive statement either way. UERD 01:52, February 13, 2010 (UTC) The statement I put up was saying that it's the only one we *know* of, saying that it's the only one that we *know* of is a proper way of putting it, like you said, we don't *know* if there is another collector cruiser or if Shepard encountered multiple cruisers. According to the Starships page, again, I'll say, that it says a fighter is: "FIGHTERS are one-man craft used to perform close-range attacks on enemy ships." and we have no idea at all if the Oculus were in fact manned fighter craft, they could simply be drones, and it's not as if we'd call the engineer combat drone a tiny ship would we? Jaline 02:01, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, I have to concur with Jaline. You state that the Oculi are fighters without really providing any proof. They seem much more like unmanned drones to me. The Oculi don't really appear to have any of the characteristics of fighters as described on the Starships page, and you really need to provide evidence that an Oculus is a fighter. Just calling it one doesn't make it so. As for the Collector cruiser seen in ME2 being the only known Collector ship, I read that as meaning that the Collector Cruiser (the type or class of ship, not just the individual vessel) seen in ME2 is the only known Collector ship, which is true. SpartHawg948 02:05, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :: Okay, I can live with that. Can we make it clear that we're talking about the only know class of Collector ship, rather than the only known individual vessel to exist? UERD 02:13, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :::How, exactly? Like I stated above, it's already clear (at least to me) from the existing wording that this is exactly what is meant. SpartHawg948 02:15, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Well there we go I suppose, an answer from Mr. SpartHawg948 himself. I also think the designers pretty much wanted to imply that the same ship was going after Shepard over and over again, it makes perfect sense. I'll have to reach the suicide mission again to make sure about what it said during the fight with the collector cruiser during that time, but I believe it's said to be the same ship. The powered down collector ship is certainly said to be the same, and even if we go simply by the *looks* of the collector cruiser that we see in game, I personally wouldn't think that they would make their ships look exactly the same, the collectors aren't really a race that I would consider caring about aesthetics of their fleet of ships (if they do indeed have more than one that is), and to start off, the ship isn't really any kind of great accomplishment design structure, it looks almost like it was just kinda thrown together when you're looking at it from the outside of it. There's no 100% confirmation either way of it being the exact same ship I suppose, but I think it's heavily implied by the course of the game, that it's meant to be the exact same ship. However as stated, the text doesn't imply that there is only one cruiser, and leaves it open to the reader to determine if they believe it to be one vessel or many. Jaline 02:17, February 13, 2010 (UTC) : Fair enough. I changed "only known ship" to "only known class of ship", if you don't have any objection to that. We could put in a note about how Joker calls the ship at the base an 'old friend', implying that it's the same vessel the entire game (which is not really explicit, but probably the closest to confirmation). UERD 02:24, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Fine, I see someone has to have the very last word when it comes to the exact wording, or in this case two words (class of). It'll probably get changed somewhere down the line in a couple of days anyways when someone else adds or deletes a portion of the page. At least we're not calling the Oculus a true ship anymore. Jaline 02:31, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :I don't really like using the phrase "class of ship" in that context though, because "Collector Cruiser" isn't really a ship class, it's an arbitrary designation imposed on ships about which we know very little. Plus, it's kind of clunky language, and makes the sentence it's added to correspondingly clunky. SpartHawg948 02:35, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :: Alright. My apologies for wasting your time (both of you) with my stupid argument. UERD 02:38, February 13, 2010 (UTC)